I recognize the behavior you are describing very much in my self. For me the best thing to get past this is to force myself to go somewhere else to study, preferably where other people are studying. But anywhere else but home really.

Usually I set a time goal, I will have to stay here for 4 hours then I can go home. I may not get much done the first days but eventually when it starts to become a habit it goes a lot smoother. Also if you don't really need your computer or phone to study, try leaving them at home.

It is very important to get out the door on time, delaying when you leave usually ends with "staying home and studying today" aka doing nothing.

Now for you as his gf, getting tips and suggestions across without coming across as "naggy" is not very easy either. Even though its not your intention at all, if he is anything like me it is unfortunately easy to perceive well intentions as nag.

People having strong reactions and being overdramatic is the reason why a possible change would occur. If everyone just chilled out and hoped that the issues with the game would just fix itself then it wouldn't.

Is most likely a mistake it's also a common misconception by many swedes. Referring to "nöt" when it comes to someones intelligence comes from "nötkreatur" - beef cattle or bovine. Not from nöt = nut. So he should have said "Måste fan ha en IQ mindre än ett nöt".

Different strategies have different strengths/weaknesses. Hydra ling for example will use up a lot more larva, (lings are really larva inefficient). It will hit later, you need to get your Lair before being able to start the hydra den and until you get hydras out you are relying on only lings to keep you alive.

Hydras have higher dps and range than roaches though and since they shoot air they are more versatile and usually work better in the later stages of the game.

Roaches on the other hand are a lot more larva effective, since you wont need lings. They are cheap and you can save up a lot of gas for a muta transition later on or heavy tech investments. They hit a lot sooner since you will be able to start speed at the same time as you would have started your hydra den (when lair is done).

Roaches are a really beefy early game unit that can deal with a lot of early game stuff very well. They often rely on timings however and become more and more a waste of supply the longer the game goes on.

Both hydra ling and roach work well depending on the situation. But you need to work with the strengths and weaknesses of the compositions to get the most out of them.

(Was in a diamond tournament and lost about 10 games before the GM tournament)

It seemed very strange at the time, did not play any masters and had about a 50% winrate.

Checking the opponents that I played against now, it shows almost all of them have been promoted to masters. So I guess the opponents I played also had MMR a bit higher that what their current league represented.

This sort of explains it. But it felt very strange to be placed in a GM tournament with less than 20 games played, while being in Platinum and had not even been placed against a master player on normal ladder yet.

Have no idea. Got signed in to NA instead of EU through the launcher. Went with it, played some ladder games and a tournament. (won all placement , went 11-7 on ladder and lost the tournament). The next tournament I signed up for got me placed in this one.

When developing reactors, just like developing anything else in a competitive market, competition will lead to different solutions. From the beginning of nuclear development there were different directions that resulted in different kinds of reactors. So my guess would be that different solutions work better with different models and/or they are heading in a different development direction. This is however only my guess.

these other reactor types apparently won't be available until ~2030. by then a lot might have changed... renewables might be so cheap and efficient that nuclear can't compete, for example.

Yes things may have changed, with emphasis on may. But the thing about nuclear power is that we know that it works, we know that this will solve our climate problems (at least reduce them to an affordable level) while providing sufficient power.

Alternative renewable energy may do that and It should always be out goal to go 100% renewable energy. However we can not afford to take the risk that renewable energy wont pay off in time, hoping that we will have solved everything by the time nuclear power could have been done.

On one hand we have nuclear power, it has some downsides yes. But it is safe, stable and we know we can depend on it until we get renewable energy to cover everything.

If we skip nuclear power and go straight for renewable energy there is a risk we wont be able to make it. If we stand without a sufficient power source while putting all our eggs in the renewable energy basket, we may find our self in some serious trouble.

Take the safe path, focus on nuclear while develop renewable energy. Replace nuclear as we go. This way we are avoiding potential disaster while going towards renewable energy and we will reduce the time we will have to have stored old nuclear waste on the way. There is really very few downsides to this.

I apologize, I was a bit stressed when I posted last time. I should have posted sources from the beginning.

Its "easy" to build a nuclear bomb, if you have the material needed. The easiest way of obtaining said material is to use waste from a ineffective nuclear reactor such as the generation II reactors. I would be very careful about comparing nuclear bombs with meltdowns however. It's not like they made a small miscalculation in Chernobyl and accidentally made a nuclear bomb instead of a plant.
A lot more than the around 50 people who died immediately from the disaster would have died then. ( A lot more died later mostly due to cancer ).

Unfortunately the most widely used power plants are generation II (just like the ones in Chernobyl and Fukushima). These are dangerous, if something goes wrong it could go very wrong.

There are many differences from each generation, energy efficiency and safety are the things that improve quite a lot. It is generation IV reactors that are on the table at the moment for being built.

Because sodium will not boil away, it does not have to be circulated and condensed as does water and can therefore be applied as a pool rather than a loop. Because the pool design does not require circulation to cool the core it does not rely on external power. Thus, if Fukushima had been equipped with such a design the reactors would have cooled down naturally even after the loss of the backup generators. Other liquid metals such as fluoride are also viable options for coolant and offer similar benefits.

Additional passively safe designs such as the Westinghouse AP1000 still rely on water as a coolant, but have restructured the system such that the coolant sits above the core. In the case of a loss of power a heat sensitive valve automatically opens and the water flows down into the reactor and removes the decay heat—simply in accordance with the laws of nature.

Gen IV designs also incorporate a passively safe fuel: uranium metal alloy. Such fuel naturally prevents a runaway chain reaction in the case of increased core temperature. The metal alloy component of the fuel expands naturally if the temperature of the core rises. This expansion slows the chain reaction by increasing the distance from one fissile nucleus to another, decreasing the chance of neutrons penetrating fissile nuclei. The control rods in current generation II and III reactors are an active safety measure providing the same service, but the fuel makes the reactor redundantly safe in case the fuel rods fail.

The redundant safety measures incorporated into Gen IV designs moves reactor safety beyond the Generation II and III principle of “mastering accidents”(accepting the possibility of accidents but taking care to ensure minimal human damage), seeking to “exclude accidents”. That is, to protect not only the human population, but also to protect the economic value of the plant and to reduce the “catastrophe factor”. Again to use the case of Fukushima, if the reactors had employed the passively safe design, the reactors in all likelihood would have shut down safely and been ready to go back on line as soon as power was restored. Moreover, the human displacement and suffering would likely have been avoided.

The Gen IV reactor design has safety measures to guard against the “maximum foreseeable risk”. And though there is always a chance that something unprecedented will occur, it is hard to imagine a scenario in which such a design would fail. Perhaps such reactor design will make investment in nuclear more attractive, and yet, perhaps not, for such redundant safety features will of course markedly increase the initial investment in the construction of a plant—already the most significant cost associated with nuclear power.